Trace Your Case

Menu

Author: TYC

Categories
Ultra Vires

V. Sudeer v. Bar Council of India AIR 1999 SC 1167

ISSUE:

Whether the Bar Council of India had the authority under the Advocates Act, 1961, to enact the Training Rules, 1995, requiring pre-enrolment training as a condition for enrollment?

Whether the Training Rules, 1995, violate the fundamental rights guaranteed under Articles 14 and 19(1)(g) of the Constitution of India by being arbitrary, unreasonable, or discriminatory?

RULE:

Rule-making authorities cannot impose additional conditions for enrollment beyond those explicitly permitted by statutory provisions.

Any rule prescribing pre-enrollment training or similar requirements must derive clear authority from the enabling legislation; otherwise, such rules are ultra vires and invalid.

Subscribe to Read More.
Join Now
Already a member? Log in here
Categories
Judicial Review of Administrative Action and Administrative Discretion

Dr. Ram Manohar Lohia v. State of Bihar and Others (1966 AIR 740)

ISSUE:

Whether the detention order issued under Rule 30(1)(b) of the Defence of India Rules was valid, given that it cited “law and order” instead of “public order” as the basis for detention?

Whether the President’s order under Article 359(1) completely barred judicial review of detention orders issued during an emergency?

RULE:

The terms “public order” and “law and order” are distinct; detention under a provision requiring “public order” must address severe disruptions affecting society at large, not minor or localized disturbances.

Courts retain the authority to review whether detention orders comply with legal provisions, even during an emergency when certain fundamental rights are suspended.

Subscribe to Read More.
Join Now
Already a member? Log in here
Categories
Ultra Vires

Banwarilal Agarwalla v. The State of Bihar 1961 AIR 849

ISSUE:

Whether Section 76 of the Mines Act, 1952, which allows for the prosecution of shareholders and directors of a private company owning a mine, violates Article 14 of the Constitution?

Whether regulations framed without adherence to mandatory procedural safeguards, such as consultation with prescribed authorities, can be deemed valid?

RULE:

A statutory provision ensuring equal liability among individuals similarly situated does not violate the principle of equality under Article 14 of the Constitution, provided it serves a legitimate objective and avoids arbitrary discrimination.

Compliance with mandatory procedural safeguards is a prerequisite for the validity of regulations. Non-adherence renders the regulations invalid unless a specific exception is provided by the legislature.

Subscribe to Read More.
Join Now
Already a member? Log in here
Categories
Judicial Review of Administrative Action and Administrative Discretion

Ashadevi v. K Shiveraj, Addl. Chief Secretary to the Govt of Gujarat, (1979) 1 SCC 222

ISSUE:

Whether the detaining authority’s failure to consider vital facts, such as the denial of legal counsel during interrogation, render the detention order invalid?

Whether the subjective satisfaction of the detaining authority is vitiated when material facts that could influence its decision are not placed before it?

Whether the procedural safeguards, such as the right to legal representation during interrogation, were violated, and whether such violations affect the legality of the detention order?

RULE:

The detaining authority must consider all material facts that could influence its decision to issue a detention order. Failure to do so vitiates its subjective satisfaction and renders the order illegal.

Procedural safeguards, including the right to legal representation during interrogation, must be strictly adhered to. Violations of these safeguards undermine the fairness of the detention process and can invalidate the detention order.

Subscribe to Read More.
Join Now
Already a member? Log in here
Categories
Ultra Vires

Union of India v. Ganesh Das Bhojraj (AIR 2000 SC 1102)

ISSUE:

Whether an exemption notification under Section 25 of the Customs Act, 1962, becomes enforceable solely upon its publication in the Official Gazette?

Whether the publication of a notification must be accompanied by its availability to the public for it to be legally operative?

RULE:

Operative Effect of Publication: A notification becomes legally effective upon publication in the Official Gazette, provided the governing statute prescribes this mode of notification, without requiring additional measures such as public availability unless explicitly stated.

Standard for Legislative Promulgation: Delegated legislation or subordinate notifications are deemed enforceable if published in accordance with the prescribed statutory mode, which typically requires gazette publication as a sufficient and customary method of notifying concerned parties.

Subscribe to Read More.
Join Now
Already a member? Log in here
Categories
Retrospective Application

State of Madhya Pradesh v. Tikam Das AIR 1975 SC 1429

ISSUE:

Whether the State Government has the authority to retrospectively apply enhanced license fees on the balance stock of intoxicants held by a licensee after the expiry of the license period?

Whether the balance stock of liquor, already subjected to the license fee at the time of its initial purchase, can be subjected to an enhanced fee retrospectively?

RULE:

Subordinate legislation, such as rules made by a delegate, can be given retrospective effect if explicitly or implicitly authorized by the parent statute.

The principles of equity and consistency in taxation justify applying enhanced fees to surplus stock retained by the licensee, ensuring parity with other vendors operating under the revised fee structure?

Subscribe to Read More.
Join Now
Already a member? Log in here
Categories
Retrospective Application

Miss Raj Soni v. Air Officer In-Charge AIR 1990 SC 1305

ISSUE:

Whether the petitioner, as an existing employee prior to the enforcement of the Delhi Education Act, 1973, and Rules, was entitled to retire at the age of 60 years instead of 58 years as determined by the school management?

Whether the respondent school, despite being a private and unaided institution, was legally bound to uniformly apply statutory provisions under the Delhi Education Act and Rules to its employees?

RULE:

Statutory provisions governing service conditions, including retirement age, are binding on recognized private schools, regardless of whether they are aided or unaided, and such provisions must be applied uniformly.

Existing employees are entitled to retain the more favorable service conditions, such as a higher retirement age, provided under prior applicable frameworks, and any deviation is impermissible under the statutory framework.

Subscribe to Read More.
Join Now
Already a member? Log in here
Categories
Unconstitutionality

Air India v. Nargesh Meerza AIR 1981 SC 1829

ISSUE:

Whether regulations mandating termination of employment upon pregnancy or imposing differential retirement ages constitute arbitrary or discriminatory treatment, thereby violating constitutional principles of equality?

Whether restrictions on personal choices, such as marriage within a specified period, amount to an unreasonable encroachment on individual rights or are justified by legitimate objectives?

RULE:

A regulation or policy must not result in arbitrary or unreasonable treatment; classifications must be based on intelligible differentia with a rational nexus to the objective sought to be achieved, and restrictions on rights must be proportionate and serve a legitimate public purpose.

Subscribe to Read More.
Join Now
Already a member? Log in here
Categories
Retrospective Application

A.V. Nachane v. Union of India AIR 1982 SC 1126

ISSUE:

Whether retrospective legislation or rules can nullify a binding Supreme Court judgment and override rights already accrued?

Whether the LIC (Amendment) Act, 1981, and the rules made under it violate constitutional protections under Articles 14 and 19(1)(g)?

Whether the delegation of legislative power under the LIC (Amendment) Act, 1981, is excessive or lacks sufficient legislative guidance?

RULE:

Retrospective legislation cannot nullify a binding judicial mandate or accrued rights unless expressly provided for and constitutionally valid.

Legislative delegation is valid if sufficient policy guidance is provided, ensuring clear limits on the exercise of delegated powers.

Laws are valid under Article 14 if classifications are reasonable and not arbitrary and under Article 19(1)(g) if restrictions serve the public interest and are justified.

Subscribe to Read More.
Join Now
Already a member? Log in here
Categories
Ultra Vires

Collectors Of Central Excise v. New Tobacco Co. (1998) 8 SCC 250

ISSUE:

Whether a notification under the Central Excise Act becomes enforceable on the date of its printing in the official Gazette or only when it is made publicly accessible?

Whether the liability to pay differential excise duty be imposed retroactively for the period before a notification is made available to the public?

RULE:

A notification under the Central Excise Act becomes effective only when it is made publicly accessible, ensuring that individuals affected by it have the opportunity to be aware of its provisions.

Principles of natural justice require that laws or notifications imposing obligations or penalties must be effectively communicated to the public to ensure fairness and legal enforceability.

Subscribe to Read More.
Join Now
Already a member? Log in here